This becomes an issue in the long run because it's unclear how much information is hidden (by simple omission) from people based on these invisible profiles. There's a very strong potential for the tail to begin wagging the dog: what content websites, search engines, and social networks display can influence user behaviors.
According to the law of force and counterforce, the tail and the dog wag each other. Your behaviour affects what information you see which affects your behaviour, just like now (you watch Fox News because you hold right-wing political beliefs, and you hold right-wing political beliefs because Fox News constantly reinforces them). So do personalized websites really change anything?
It's not outside the realm of possibility or believability that Starbucks would pay Google or Waze cold hard cash to route directions past drive-thru Starbucks locations for any user with a Starbucks reward card. That route may cost you extra money or time as its purpose is to serve the customer (Starbucks) and not the product (you).
And yet, this happens in direct response to you spending lots of time and money in Starbucks, so it's also not outside the realm of possibility that an "intelligent" route planner would plan such a route even if it only considers your preferences. In fact, every route planner has to consider your preferences since there's often multiple possible routes which are optimal in different ways (fastest vs. cheapest).
he's coming over to the UK to tell us to stay in the European Union, such is his love of huge centralized bureaucracies
Or maybe he's read history and knows that Europe without EU makes Middle-East look peaceful, as well as provide more opportunities for Russian superpower comeback.
Also, what would you prefer to bureaucracy: anarchy or arbitrary tyranny? Rule of law works better than either of those, even if it requires more manpower, and means you can't always have your way.
I blame Political correctness and SJWs for the rise in trump.
How about blaming the Republican voters who are voting for him?
its the rubber band effect. the side of political correctness has pushed too far, now its bouncing back in the opposite direction where people are starting to relate to trump due to what some see as non political correct and what others call hate speech.
If Republican voters find Trump to be the candidate who best embodies their political ideas, that's the fault of said voters and their party, not their opponents.
But it's always good to get a reminder of what conservatives actually mean by "personal responsibility": never their fault.
All communism devolves into dictatorship. The authoritarian aspects are neccesity when i decide I want more or want to work less or keep what I earn. Greed and laziness doesn't magically disappear. All participants need to either voluntarily participate or be forced to else removed from the system.
It follows that every economic system devolves into dictatorship. They are all composed of the interactions of these same greedy and lazy people who only work if forced to and thus must do just that, after all.
Because money improves your quality of life more than extra time does.
When you have very little money and lots of free time, yes. As your income increases and free time decreases, time becomes more valuable at some point. One of the goals of our economic system is removing the choice of working only to the tipping point, and only leaving the options of not working at all (and being destitute) or working nearly all of your waking hours.
We work so hard because it's in the best interests of our rulers that we do, because they get to gather the fruits of our labour. That's all there is to it.
At only 300 Hertz this doesn't seem to be happening with high frequency.
The frequency is less than three nanoHertz. It's been a century since the Red October, which happened well over a century after French Revolution, and we have barely began to ascent the current wave of unrest.
It'll be interesting to see whether this current wave will ultimately subside or reach the tipping point. Our economic control systems are in dire need of some kind of change, seeing how we're producing more yet people are getting poorer and less secure.
The listener is the only one responsible, for believing false statements and acting in bad faith. The speaker didn't force him.
The listener is not responsible for acting in bad faith because the listener did not act in bad faith. The speaker, on the other hand, did.
Yes, I know I'm in a tiny minority, but it does not invalidate what I say.
No, but your statements being illogical nonsense does.
Either you have free will, or you don't.
When it comes to not believing any falsehoods, you don't have free will. You can't reject all incoming data yet function, and you don't have magical ability to tell truth from falsehood so some of the latter will get trough, no matter how careful you are. The matter is out of your power.
In other words, Democrats by and large are delusional and Republicans by and large are realists.
So Democrats support evil due to insanity while Republicans support evil deliberately? I'd had assigned Democrats as True Neutral and Republicans as Chaotic Evil, but either way I'm glad we can agree that Republicans are worse people:^)
Frequently the "anger" is over the free shit they aren't getting but feel is their "right".
But far more often it is anger over social institutions and conditions - for example private property and its tendency to cumulate in capitalism - which deny them the freedom and equality which are their right.
For instance, people are mad that we're not allocating money for this or that disease.
It's hard to disagree with someone who's angry over being left to die just so you don't have to pay as much taxes.
Or that we don't have jobs and that government isn't creating more jobs for them.
It is not unreasonable to demand that society allows you to survive without resorting to crime. Under capitalism this means either enough jobs with enough pay to live on for everyone, or social security. You're trying to argue people are spoiled brats just because they don't quietly curl up to die when you don't need them anymore.
You need his toupee to make fun of Shatner? Now THAT's aiming low.
Is it? It's been said there's not that much of a difference between praying to or cursing an entity; either way you're acknowledging they exist and making them the center of yours. I'd propose spontaneous mockery should be included on that list because, after all, this conversation relies on everyone knowing who Shatner is. So whenever you mock Shatner it's equivalent to saying "By Shatner's Toupee!", and the trickster god of modern popular culture who chewed all the scenes, used all the dirty tricks and shagged all the alien women is reinforced in the common consciousness, and gains a little bit more influence over what decisions society makes.
So... when you mock Shatner, you're actually voting for Shatner - as Captain Kirk - to be the head god - the most influental archetype - of modern American pantheon (the set of cultural archetypes). So laugh at that toupee all you want, mortal, it helps The Kirk feed on you.
Trump seems the best candidate for normalizing the relations with the designated bad guys. He accepts them as people you can talk with.
Neither Putin nor Kim Whatever can afford to normalize relations because they need a crisis to excuse the results of their own incompetence and greed and an enemy to justify their "strong" leadership (tyrany). But I suppose Trump could negotiate a return to the Balance of Terror to help all maintain better control over their serfs.
It turns out that one can indeed teach one's own brain to develop PTSD over any kind of stimuli at all. All you need to do is to foster a sense of being threatened every time you encounter the stimulus of your choice. For example, you start thinking about people trying to beat you up, of menacing predators pouncing, of natural disasters closing in on you, whenever the stimulus is there. You can also jsut go and read detailed testimonies of aggressions - the more expressive and vivid, the better.
You do realize this means all those Twitter rape threats are an actual hazard to health, since they may induce PTSD? It's hard to read a message saying someone's going to rape you without thinking about someone raping you, at least at that exact moment, and thus reinforcing the mental image. And that means sending someone a threat - or any kind of description of them coming to harm - is as much of an attack as a fist to the face.
In other words, your own research shows that political correctness - or enforced civility - is both justified and necessary since uncivility damages people's mental health. So... epic fail:D.
Look at how awful political discourse is now, on both the left and the right. Everyone is hyper-focused on their opinions, partially because social media and targeted advertising continuously reinforces it. I really don't want a country of 300 million angry loudmouth Donald Trump clones walking around.
Why should anyone care about what YOU want?
Democracy isn't possible if everyone simply tries to outshout each other. In that competition the extremists will always trump everyone else, since they're best able to keep shouting with no hesitation or care for consequences, at which point the rest will either defect or be steamrolled. So either you care about what people who you don't like want, and take care to include elements of it on any proposal you're trying to seriously pass, or you get what's at best a series of short-lived dictatorships.
Of course this also means that democracy is only possible if you can trust the basic institutions of your social context - typically a nation state with certain rights guaranteed by either tradition or Constitution - to continue working and protecting you even if the Other Guy wins. That becomes unlikely if the Other Guy's popularity is mainly based on openly hating you and having no human decency to hold him back.
If Trump gets elected, that's either hitting the rock bottom or, more likely, the beginning of the end for the US.
People should give me a million dollars.
As it happens, just giving people money for free is likely what we'll end up having to do since automation is displacing them faster than they can get re-educated to a new position, and things are even worse in countries where they are expected to pay for said education themselves from their nonexistent wages. It's mainly a guestion of how far social and economic collapse processes first - do we still have a functioning world market afterwards?
SJW crowd preach at the righteous church of tolerance and respect except of course when they disagree. Then any faÃfade of respect melts away to reveal the same weak confused hapless souls as all the oppressors who have lived before them.
That's because there is no "SJW crowd". There are lots of people who protest any particular injustice for a variety of reasons, ranging from "this is wrong" to "this harms me personally", but with religion serving the powerful and Socialism still suffering from the shadow of Stalinism there's no consistent, unified ideology to criticize all social ills rather than merely trade one for another.
Things will start getting better again when the Left adapts to the new situation and gets a new long-term goal. That will also give right-wing bundits a worthy opponent to focus on, rather than attack immigrants and other helpless people in the absence of one.
I value the lives of all people, including those who choose to be part of the self-styled LGBTQ community, but also including the many, many more who do not. Those who would imprison or murder people for being a part of that community are wrong, but so are those who would allow the destruction of an entire civilization at that community's behest.
The difference is the latter group doesn't exist, because the LGBTQ community can't destroy the civilization because how in the heck could it possibly do that even if it wanted to?
Civilized societies have found a way to find a balance somewhere between those two extremes.
Barbarous societies found ways to balance people's need to live against Great Moloch's need for human sacrifice. Civilized societies don't sacrifice actual people's actual needs for the sake of boogeymen.
Victim blaming not only *is* cheaper, but it's also the right thing to do to someone who makes a conscious and knowledgeable effort to be a victim of an event that is not a crime.
So does this mean someone who died in a plane crash deserved it for being foolish enough to board the plane in the first place?
I also blame the idiot that sticks his hand into a machine with large moving parts and loses it, assuming nobody else pushed them in there. And I am apathetic towards them.
Are you still apathetic when you get to support him since he now only has one arm and thus a reduced capacity to work? Or perhaps you'll leave him to fend for himself and are indifferent when he does so by selling heroin to your kids? But maybe we'll get lucky and he'll die quietly, so we merely suffer the economic loss of one producer and consumer.
And I like it.
Something being a pleasant fantasy doesn't mean it's a good idea. Lots of people seem to have trouble comprehending that. I suspect that's the next great challenge democracy faces: common people coming to terms with the fact that they are in charge, and either act like adults or suffer the consequences.
King George didn't. Neither did Louis the XIV. Both Stalin and Hitler failed to build their respective thousand-year regimes. In fact, the very fact that we're having this discussion in a democratic republic rather than sitting in silence, too afraid of our feudal overlords who rule by divine right to speak, is a testament to the utter inability of power and the powerful to even keep their positions, much less advance.
So how about you grow a pair, Anon, and stop repeating the malevolent lies of a dying concept?
YES. Many people would love an asset like a car to sell.
It would be rather foolish to sell a productive asset - a car which lets you seek work from a larger area - to help with a cashflow problem.
I'd also like to know if she had cable. Something tells me she did.
That something being your internalized cultural indoctrination making up shit to shield said culture's systems from criticism. It's actually quite fascinating to watch.
Also, you're making the rather weird assumption that people are robots and don't need recreation. I presume it originates from the same ideological source, since it certainly isn't something you could conclude from observing humans or being one yourself.
If she was that good then why was she working for $9 less than the Bay Area average CSR?
Shouldn't you be more worried about having to effectively subsidize Yelp by letting them pay their employees such low wages that those employees end up on public support?
You can't die from above freezing temperatures. It takes prolonged exposure to freezing temp to use up all available energy reserves.
Even nonlethal cold makes you uncomfortable because it puts a load on your body and prevents you from resting properly since you can't drop your metabolic rate without freezing. If you don't do something about it, it will slowly but surely grind away your health.
(I've done winter survival training in -35 and 4 feet of snow).
And I've stayed up all night and people have trekked across Sahara drinking their own pee but you can't live that way or you will indeed die, it'll just take a while.
She could have written exactly the same letter, but removed the identifiers and replaced it with "Major IT company" and sent to to the newspapers and she would have been fine.
Except she wasn't fine to begin with. She didn't, after all, get paid enough to live on. So she faced the choice of making a bad situation slightly worse but putting the screws on a robber baron in the process, or making a totally ineffective gesture.
Expect more and more people to take a hard look at their lives and decide they have nothing to lose besides their chains. And expect their choises regarding this to get more and more radical as gentler alternatives - such as open letters - prove totally ineffective. Once that avalanche really gets going, there's no stopping it; we're heading for another age of revolution.
That said, even if this was the first thing she ever did; sending an open letter to the CEO will get you fired, no matter how well organized the Union is.
It is clear that there is a trust issue and employment is no longer an option.
Trust has nothing to do with it, it's just a matter of making an example of someone who's complaining openly in hopes of intimidating everyone else into silence. Just another day in paradise.
All communist ideologues on this planet led the people to authoritarian systems.
People who have lived their entire lives under authoritarian systems will build another authoritarian system should they get to power, because that's what they're used to and feel comfortable with. Communist Russia was no different from Tsar's Russia, which in turn is pretty similar to Putin's Russia. Just like Capitalism was born from Feudalism and inherited its hierarchical structure, only this time based on wealth rather than family.
The reality is that those, unwilling to fend for themselves want socialism or communism to be imposed on the rest, so that they can get their cut of the loot.
More and more people are not allowed to fend for themselves, because those private property laws you hold so valuable lock away all the resources - such as farmland - that would enable them to do so and those who own them simply don't need their labour due to mechanisation and automation. That is the historical context in which Socialism and Communism were born, and the problem they seek to correct. And it's also why they will always be born again as long as Capitalism exists.
I am against all forms of income and wealth taxes, I see those as enslavement of the individual by the collective, I am against all forms of redistribution based on violence and coercion.
All forms of property are based on violence and coercion. How else do you intend to stop me from simply picking and eating apples from a tree you've claimed as "yours"? Furthermore, how do you propose resolving competing claims expect by letting the "collective" decide?
Cooperation among free individuals in the market free of collective oppression is the only worthy type of cooperation.
We don't have that now. We won't have anything even remotely resembling "cooperation among free individuals" as long as economic power is unevenly distributed, as it is now. What we have is a very efficient form of collective oppression where people get to pick from the options pre-approved by the system they live in. You said you were born in the USSR, so all of this should be quite familiar: it's the economic version of Soviet elections.
They should be demanding freedom from oppression of governments instead they are choosing more oppression.
For the most part, youth in West are free from government oppression and are instead oppressed by the economic system they live in.
The writing is on the wall, to quote a very well recognized saying on this topic, "Who is John Galt?"
A fictional character meant to prey on rich people's vanity.
Slashdot Mirror
According to the law of force and counterforce, the tail and the dog wag each other. Your behaviour affects what information you see which affects your behaviour, just like now (you watch Fox News because you hold right-wing political beliefs, and you hold right-wing political beliefs because Fox News constantly reinforces them). So do personalized websites really change anything?
And yet, this happens in direct response to you spending lots of time and money in Starbucks, so it's also not outside the realm of possibility that an "intelligent" route planner would plan such a route even if it only considers your preferences. In fact, every route planner has to consider your preferences since there's often multiple possible routes which are optimal in different ways (fastest vs. cheapest).
Or maybe he's read history and knows that Europe without EU makes Middle-East look peaceful, as well as provide more opportunities for Russian superpower comeback.
Also, what would you prefer to bureaucracy: anarchy or arbitrary tyranny? Rule of law works better than either of those, even if it requires more manpower, and means you can't always have your way.
How about blaming the Republican voters who are voting for him?
If Republican voters find Trump to be the candidate who best embodies their political ideas, that's the fault of said voters and their party, not their opponents.
But it's always good to get a reminder of what conservatives actually mean by "personal responsibility": never their fault.
It was, but unfortunately it happens to conflict with right-wing ideology and short-term interests of some powerful companies.
It follows that every economic system devolves into dictatorship. They are all composed of the interactions of these same greedy and lazy people who only work if forced to and thus must do just that, after all.
When you have very little money and lots of free time, yes. As your income increases and free time decreases, time becomes more valuable at some point. One of the goals of our economic system is removing the choice of working only to the tipping point, and only leaving the options of not working at all (and being destitute) or working nearly all of your waking hours.
We work so hard because it's in the best interests of our rulers that we do, because they get to gather the fruits of our labour. That's all there is to it.
The frequency is less than three nanoHertz. It's been a century since the Red October, which happened well over a century after French Revolution, and we have barely began to ascent the current wave of unrest.
It'll be interesting to see whether this current wave will ultimately subside or reach the tipping point. Our economic control systems are in dire need of some kind of change, seeing how we're producing more yet people are getting poorer and less secure.
The listener is not responsible for acting in bad faith because the listener did not act in bad faith. The speaker, on the other hand, did.
No, but your statements being illogical nonsense does.
When it comes to not believing any falsehoods, you don't have free will. You can't reject all incoming data yet function, and you don't have magical ability to tell truth from falsehood so some of the latter will get trough, no matter how careful you are. The matter is out of your power.
How about the things they do to you, like lying?
So Democrats support evil due to insanity while Republicans support evil deliberately? I'd had assigned Democrats as True Neutral and Republicans as Chaotic Evil, but either way I'm glad we can agree that Republicans are worse people :^)
But far more often it is anger over social institutions and conditions - for example private property and its tendency to cumulate in capitalism - which deny them the freedom and equality which are their right.
It's hard to disagree with someone who's angry over being left to die just so you don't have to pay as much taxes.
It is not unreasonable to demand that society allows you to survive without resorting to crime. Under capitalism this means either enough jobs with enough pay to live on for everyone, or social security. You're trying to argue people are spoiled brats just because they don't quietly curl up to die when you don't need them anymore.
Is it? It's been said there's not that much of a difference between praying to or cursing an entity; either way you're acknowledging they exist and making them the center of yours. I'd propose spontaneous mockery should be included on that list because, after all, this conversation relies on everyone knowing who Shatner is. So whenever you mock Shatner it's equivalent to saying "By Shatner's Toupee!", and the trickster god of modern popular culture who chewed all the scenes, used all the dirty tricks and shagged all the alien women is reinforced in the common consciousness, and gains a little bit more influence over what decisions society makes.
So... when you mock Shatner, you're actually voting for Shatner - as Captain Kirk - to be the head god - the most influental archetype - of modern American pantheon (the set of cultural archetypes). So laugh at that toupee all you want, mortal, it helps The Kirk feed on you.
That's not a good thing.
Neither Putin nor Kim Whatever can afford to normalize relations because they need a crisis to excuse the results of their own incompetence and greed and an enemy to justify their "strong" leadership (tyrany). But I suppose Trump could negotiate a return to the Balance of Terror to help all maintain better control over their serfs.
That depends on why someone is likeable or not.
Nucular George starts looking like the good old days.
But the scary thing is, I'm pretty sure so will Trump, a few elections from now.
You do realize this means all those Twitter rape threats are an actual hazard to health, since they may induce PTSD? It's hard to read a message saying someone's going to rape you without thinking about someone raping you, at least at that exact moment, and thus reinforcing the mental image. And that means sending someone a threat - or any kind of description of them coming to harm - is as much of an attack as a fist to the face.
In other words, your own research shows that political correctness - or enforced civility - is both justified and necessary since uncivility damages people's mental health. So... epic fail :D.
Democracy isn't possible if everyone simply tries to outshout each other. In that competition the extremists will always trump everyone else, since they're best able to keep shouting with no hesitation or care for consequences, at which point the rest will either defect or be steamrolled. So either you care about what people who you don't like want, and take care to include elements of it on any proposal you're trying to seriously pass, or you get what's at best a series of short-lived dictatorships.
Of course this also means that democracy is only possible if you can trust the basic institutions of your social context - typically a nation state with certain rights guaranteed by either tradition or Constitution - to continue working and protecting you even if the Other Guy wins. That becomes unlikely if the Other Guy's popularity is mainly based on openly hating you and having no human decency to hold him back.
If Trump gets elected, that's either hitting the rock bottom or, more likely, the beginning of the end for the US.
As it happens, just giving people money for free is likely what we'll end up having to do since automation is displacing them faster than they can get re-educated to a new position, and things are even worse in countries where they are expected to pay for said education themselves from their nonexistent wages. It's mainly a guestion of how far social and economic collapse processes first - do we still have a functioning world market afterwards?
That's because there is no "SJW crowd". There are lots of people who protest any particular injustice for a variety of reasons, ranging from "this is wrong" to "this harms me personally", but with religion serving the powerful and Socialism still suffering from the shadow of Stalinism there's no consistent, unified ideology to criticize all social ills rather than merely trade one for another.
Things will start getting better again when the Left adapts to the new situation and gets a new long-term goal. That will also give right-wing bundits a worthy opponent to focus on, rather than attack immigrants and other helpless people in the absence of one.
The difference is the latter group doesn't exist, because the LGBTQ community can't destroy the civilization because how in the heck could it possibly do that even if it wanted to?
Barbarous societies found ways to balance people's need to live against Great Moloch's need for human sacrifice. Civilized societies don't sacrifice actual people's actual needs for the sake of boogeymen.
So does this mean someone who died in a plane crash deserved it for being foolish enough to board the plane in the first place?
Are you still apathetic when you get to support him since he now only has one arm and thus a reduced capacity to work? Or perhaps you'll leave him to fend for himself and are indifferent when he does so by selling heroin to your kids? But maybe we'll get lucky and he'll die quietly, so we merely suffer the economic loss of one producer and consumer.
Something being a pleasant fantasy doesn't mean it's a good idea. Lots of people seem to have trouble comprehending that. I suspect that's the next great challenge democracy faces: common people coming to terms with the fact that they are in charge, and either act like adults or suffer the consequences.
Nobody's telling AGU to STFU, they're telling them to stop lending credibility to liars for money.
Nobody's calling ExxonMobil heretics, they're calling them liars.
King George didn't. Neither did Louis the XIV. Both Stalin and Hitler failed to build their respective thousand-year regimes. In fact, the very fact that we're having this discussion in a democratic republic rather than sitting in silence, too afraid of our feudal overlords who rule by divine right to speak, is a testament to the utter inability of power and the powerful to even keep their positions, much less advance.
So how about you grow a pair, Anon, and stop repeating the malevolent lies of a dying concept?
People who have 'mental issues' do not like background checks. They don't like others having information on them.
To be fair, a lot of completely sane people don't like others having information on them either.
It would be rather foolish to sell a productive asset - a car which lets you seek work from a larger area - to help with a cashflow problem.
That something being your internalized cultural indoctrination making up shit to shield said culture's systems from criticism. It's actually quite fascinating to watch.
Also, you're making the rather weird assumption that people are robots and don't need recreation. I presume it originates from the same ideological source, since it certainly isn't something you could conclude from observing humans or being one yourself.
Shouldn't you be more worried about having to effectively subsidize Yelp by letting them pay their employees such low wages that those employees end up on public support?
Even nonlethal cold makes you uncomfortable because it puts a load on your body and prevents you from resting properly since you can't drop your metabolic rate without freezing. If you don't do something about it, it will slowly but surely grind away your health.
And I've stayed up all night and people have trekked across Sahara drinking their own pee but you can't live that way or you will indeed die, it'll just take a while.
Deservedly so, it seems.
Except she wasn't fine to begin with. She didn't, after all, get paid enough to live on. So she faced the choice of making a bad situation slightly worse but putting the screws on a robber baron in the process, or making a totally ineffective gesture.
Expect more and more people to take a hard look at their lives and decide they have nothing to lose besides their chains. And expect their choises regarding this to get more and more radical as gentler alternatives - such as open letters - prove totally ineffective. Once that avalanche really gets going, there's no stopping it; we're heading for another age of revolution.
Trust has nothing to do with it, it's just a matter of making an example of someone who's complaining openly in hopes of intimidating everyone else into silence. Just another day in paradise.
People who have lived their entire lives under authoritarian systems will build another authoritarian system should they get to power, because that's what they're used to and feel comfortable with. Communist Russia was no different from Tsar's Russia, which in turn is pretty similar to Putin's Russia. Just like Capitalism was born from Feudalism and inherited its hierarchical structure, only this time based on wealth rather than family.
More and more people are not allowed to fend for themselves, because those private property laws you hold so valuable lock away all the resources - such as farmland - that would enable them to do so and those who own them simply don't need their labour due to mechanisation and automation. That is the historical context in which Socialism and Communism were born, and the problem they seek to correct. And it's also why they will always be born again as long as Capitalism exists.
All forms of property are based on violence and coercion. How else do you intend to stop me from simply picking and eating apples from a tree you've claimed as "yours"? Furthermore, how do you propose resolving competing claims expect by letting the "collective" decide?
We don't have that now. We won't have anything even remotely resembling "cooperation among free individuals" as long as economic power is unevenly distributed, as it is now. What we have is a very efficient form of collective oppression where people get to pick from the options pre-approved by the system they live in. You said you were born in the USSR, so all of this should be quite familiar: it's the economic version of Soviet elections.
For the most part, youth in West are free from government oppression and are instead oppressed by the economic system they live in.
A fictional character meant to prey on rich people's vanity.